[Garth Tater]

Mom: "Vaccines consist of a killed or attenuated pathogen, or of proteins extracted from a pathogen"

Me: "Was there some reason that you left out toxoid vaccines which protect against the toxins made by the pathogen and do not contain the pathogen itself (killed or attenuated) or proteins extracted from the pathogen?"

Mom: "You should have probably looked up the definition of "toxoid" before posting that. A toxoid is a detoxified toxin extracted from a pathogen. A toxin is a poisonous protein. Toxins can be extracted directly from the pathogen and deactivated"

Again with the wiggle words Mom. "can be extracted directly from" is not the same as "are extracted directly from," now is it? I think the toxoid used in the tetanus vaccine is not extracted from the Clostridium tetan cell but instead is derived from the tetanospasmin produced by the Clostridium tetan cell and the tetanospasmin used to create the toxoid comes from outside of the Clostridium tetan cell and is not extracted from the cell.

Please correct me if I am wrong. A link would be appreciated.


"And I very specifically was not trying to cover every vaccine type, but to convey an idea of what vaccines are to an audience that is not scientists."

Oh, so I see here that you admit to fudging the facts... so why are you telling me that I am wrong when I point out this misstatement of yours?

That small complaint aside Mom, I seriously think that congratulations are in order. This is the first time I have ever seen you admit to making even the slightest mistake - even a minor misstatement. I am impressed!

Just a suggestion, but in the future when you are trying to simplify an explanation for your audience you should consider using a qualifier like, "most" or "generally speaking" - you know, something to make your statement fully correct and not a slight misstatement of the facts.

You know that most of our disagreements come from your over statements of the facts. Does - "ALL" food comes from atmospheric CO2 - No exceptions - ring a bell? I seem to remember you abandoning the thread after I proved you wrong on that one.

Or was it the "Again, no exception. Anaerobes use biomolecules to form their bodies, and, just as with aerobes, those biomolecules were originally formed from CO2 through the process of >photosynthesis." Again, when I proved this statement to be an overstatement you abandoned the thread. "No exceptions" in the real world rarely exist - as I have proven to you several times now.

But to end on a more cheerful note, other than your rude and demeaning nature, I find you to be an informative Freeper and I actually agree with you on many things. Cheers and Merry almost Christmas Mom.

[exDemMom]

Again with the wiggle words Mom. "can be extracted directly from" is not the same as "are extracted directly from," now is it? I think the toxoid used in the tetanus vaccine is not extracted from the Clostridium tetan cell but instead is derived from the tetanospasmin produced by the Clostridium tetan cell and the tetanospasmin used to create the toxoid comes from outside of the Clostridium tetan cell and is not extracted from the cell.

Once again, you only demonstrate your utter lack of scientific training. When a protein is extracted from any kind of organism, it does not matter if the protein is secreted into the media, if the protein is located in the periplasmic space, if it is located in occlusion bodies, or if it is found in any other location associated with the cell. The only significance of that is the selection of method used to extract the protein--which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

As I have mentioned before, and others have joined me, why don't you take a few years to actually take some basic science classes? Get back to me when you understand the full picture--better yet, when you understand why pseudoscience websites are NOT a valid source of scientific information.

Oh, so I see here that you admit to fudging the facts... so why are you telling me that I am wrong when I point out this misstatement of yours?

Do you seriously expect me to write a 200 page dissertation on the various vaccine types and production methods? It is not "fudging the facts" to condense reams of very complicated information into a simplified format that relays the important points to people who have no scientific background.

Does - "ALL" food comes from atmospheric CO2 - No exceptions - ring a bell?

As I recall, you combined two separate things that I said. One, is that the basic building block of biological molecules in *all* organisms is CO2, no exceptions. The other is that another poster could mock his rabidly liberal (and unthinking niece) by telling her that every item in the Thanksgiving spread was atmospheric CO2 a few short months ago. I have already deconstructed your misrepresentation of what I said several times; there is no need to go over that again.

The issue here is that you have trouble accepting that you are wrong, compounded by the fact that you have internalized pseudoscience. That is your issue, not mine. If you would actually study valid science for a few years, starting with basic chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics, and working your way to more complicated subjects, you might actually develop an understanding of the "big picture."